Carbon emissions rise

The Daily Telegraph reports on a report from the Global Carbon Project. In 2007 CO2 emissions grew by 2.2 parts per million per year to a concentration of 383 ppm – up from 280 ppm in 1750. This was despite a decade of international efforts to tackle global warming. Time for despair – no. But surely a time for concerted international action.

This entry was posted in Climate change. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Carbon emissions rise

  1. matt says:

    I can’t see concerted international action on this during a global economic down turn. It was minimal during the boom times. Although if businesses are producing less because we are buying less of their products emissions will fall anyway. Economic doom may be good for the climate.

  2. Stephan Smith says:

    Hi Keith,

    Here is a link to some real data that backs up your concerns.


  3. the Grit says:

    Hi all,

    The good news is that global atmospheric CO2 concentration measurements are even less reliable than the temperature data used to scare us into believing in Global Warming. Almost all published measurements are based on the theory that all gases disperse uniformly in the atmosphere, which a quick visit to

    will prove them to be false. Really, everyone involved talks a good game, and billions of dollars continue to be poured into the science, but little seems to improve except the bank balances of the Climate Scientists. Go figure.

    As to matt’s theory on economic collapse being good for the environment, that depends on how far back we fall. Sure, if the vast majority of humans die off because of the games our elite are playing, then the environment will take a general step forward. On the other hand, if several billion of us are left destitute and grasping for whatever means of existence we can get, then the last few members of the endangered tufted tit mouse clan are most likely to wind up as dinner for some family on the verge of starvation. Heck, my fall of civilization plans include lots of local hunting to supplement the food stores I have on hand.

    Truly, I do like to watch the squirrels jump from tree to tree in our yard, and, when I get the chance, I find it most satisfying to go down by our lake before dawn and watch the deer come out to feed as the sun comes up. Also, I always make time to spend an evening by the lake watching the ducks and geese come in and settle down for the night. Of course, if the economy is bad enough, they will be dinner.

    On a larger scale, it’s fairly obvious that any Government in charge during really hard economic times will turn a blind eye to enforcing environmental regulations. This is because, at the heart of the issue, such measures are luxuries and, when it comes down to a choice between the basic needs of people and preserving the pristine habitat of whatever, the decision is going to go in the favor of the hungry mob that just might put the heads of those in charge on the chopping block. This, by the way, goes for any extra cost incurred by paying more for clean energy, oil price increases due to not drilling in ecologically sensitively areas, bans on genetically modified foods, over fishing, and, well, most any other environmental concern.

    Scared people easily become a mob. A mob is capable of doing anything except thinking. Follow our elections if you don’t believe me 🙂

    the Grit

  4. keithsc says:

    Hi Grit

    I am sure you find that the scientists producing these figures are rather more rigorous than you would like to think. See for example the data from Mauna Loa at which found a 2.14% growth.

  5. the Grit says:

    Hi k,

    I follow the NOAA reports and I still would point out that a single point of measurement is not representative of the entire globe. On the other hand, if you continue looking through their published data, you will eventually find the satellite measurements of CO2 levels that clearly show said gas is NOT evenly distributed in the atmosphere.

    As to scientists being rigorous, as in any other profession money talks. Would you, for instance, trust studies on the effects of smoking tobacco done by scientists who are paid by the tobacco companies? I suspect not. The same line of reasoning must then apply to scientists being paid by organization which have a vested interest in proving that Global Warming is real. I won’t trust any of it until the money and politics is removed from the process.

    the Grit

Comments are closed.